January 20, 2007
AP: The Art of the Dodge
Almost two months after the Associated Press ran the story that six Sunnis were pulled from a mosque in the Baghdad neighborhood of Hurriyah, doused in kerosene and set ablaze, the Associated Press continues to dodge a series of very simple questions surrounding their alleged deaths, and the deaths of 18 other Sunnis their reports claim were murdered.
Four days ago, I sent a simple series of direct questions to Linda M. Wagner, Director of Media Relations and Public Affairs for the Associated Press.
On November 24 and 25, 2006, AP reported four mosques--al-Mustafa, Nidaa Allah, al-Muhaimin and al-Qaqaqa mosques--were attacked "with rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine guns and automatic rifles," before being "burned and blew up." These allegations were directly attributed to Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein. Successive AP coverage has dropped all mention of three of the mosques. Does the Associated Press still maintain that four mosques were attacked in Hurriyah on November 24, 2006 with RPGs, heavy machine guns and assault rifles, and that these four mosques were burned and blown up?The AP also cited the Association of Muslim Scholars as a source for a claim that at one of these mosques (al-Muhaimin) "18 people had died in an inferno" as a result of these attacks. Do you think it was responsible of the Associated Press to run these allegations considering that the Association of Muslim Scholars is alleged to have strong ties with both the Sunni insurgency and al Qaeda? Should AP have mentioned these ties to terrorist groups when it cited the AMS as a source? These 18 claimed dead have also disappeared for subsequent AP reports. Does the Associated Press still stand behind this claim they reported?
In both instances, if the Associated Press no longer feels these accounts are credible, don't you have a responsibility as an ethical news organization to print a correction or a retraction of these charges?
Further, I have seen written claims shortly after the first AP claims of an attack that AP Television has video footage of damage to the Ahbab al-Mustafa mosque, where AP source Jamil Hussein claims six men were pulled from the mosque and immolated. Does the Associated Press indeed have such footage? If so, why has it not been mentioned since November 30, and can I obtain a copy of that footage?
If the Associated Press does not have the video footage of damage to the Ahbab al-Mustafa mosque from the attack that left six men immolated, the why has the Associated Press not acknowledged this, and printed a retraction or a correction for this claim?
As you can see, my primary line of questioning is wondering why the AP has back of claims made in the first several days of reporting, without printing a correction or a retraction of these claims.
I'd also like to know if the Associated Press still stands behind the accounts sourced to Jamil Hussein by the Associated Press between April and November of 2006.
Late Friday afternoon, Wagner finally offered a response... just no direct answers to any of my questions:
When following up on past reports that feature new information, news agencies do not repeat all of the details that were in their original breaking news reports. This does not mean that they are retracting what they had published previously unless a new report, correction or clarification states that explicitly. A search of news reports in Nexis and Reuters shows that reporters for numerous news agencies, including The New York Times, Washington Post, and Reuters reported attacks on four or five Sunni mosques in Hurriyah (also spelled Hurriya) and additional sites elsewhere in Baghdad on Friday, November 24, 2006. As may happen in breaking news reports from active combat zones, the precise toll of death and injury can be difficult to establish. Below are relevant passages from several news accounts of the incidents in Baghdad on that date. I have sent your questions to our International news desk. If any new information about this topic becomes available, I'll let you know.
Wagner also provided a list of other news sources that wrote about mosque attacks in Hurriyah on November 24.
Despite providing some interesting reading, Wagner still avoided answering the questions I asked.
Stripped of the background information, I asked Wagner a total of 10 questions:
- Does the Associated Press still maintain that four mosques were attacked in Hurriyah on November 24, 2006 with RPGs, heavy machine guns and assault rifles, and
- that these four mosques were burned and blown up?
- Do you think it was responsible of the Associated Press to run these allegations considering that the Association of Muslim Scholars is alleged to have strong ties with both the Sunni insurgency and al Qaeda?
- Should AP have mentioned these ties to terrorist groups when it cited the AMS as a source?
- These 18 claimed dead have also disappeared for subsequent AP reports. Does the Associated Press still stand behind this claim they reported?
- In both instances, if the Associated Press no longer feels these accounts are credible, don't you have a responsibility as an ethical news organization to print a correction or a retraction of these charges?
- Further, I have seen written claims shortly after the first AP claims of an attack that AP Television has video footage of damage to the Ahbab al-Mustafa mosque, where AP source Jamil Hussein claims six men were pulled from the mosque and immolated. Does the Associated Press indeed have such footage?
- If so, why has it not been mentioned since November 30, and can I obtain a copy of that footage?
- If the Associated Press does not have the video footage of damage to the Ahbab al-Mustafa mosque from the attack that left six men immolated, the why has the Associated Press not acknowledged this, and printed a retraction or a correction for this claim?
- I'd also like to know if the Associated Press still stands behind the accounts sourced to Jamil Hussein by the Associated Press between April and November of 2006.
Wagner's response only provided three answers:
- When following up on past reports that feature new information, news agencies do not repeat all of the details that were in their original breaking news reports. This does not mean that they are retracting what they had published previously unless a new report, correction or clarification states that explicitly.
- A search of news reports in Nexis and Reuters shows that reporters for numerous news agencies, including The New York Times, Washington Post, and Reuters reported attacks on four or five Sunni mosques in Hurriyah (also spelled Hurriya) and additional sites elsewhere in Baghdad on Friday, November 24, 2006.
- As may happen in breaking news reports from active combat zones, the precise toll of death and injury can be difficult to establish.
So let's see what the Associated Press response does not answer:
- Wagner does not say that the Associated Press still maintains that four mosques were attacked with RPGs, heavy machine guns and assault rifles.
- Wagner does not say that the AP still maintains these four mosques were burned and blown up.
- Wagner does not address whether or not it was responsible of the Associated Press to run allegations made by the Association of Muslim Scholars, a group alleged to have strong ties with both the Sunni insurgency and al Qaeda, or
- whether or not the Associated Press should have mentioned these terrorist ties to their readers
- Wagner does not answer whether or not AP television captured video footage showing damage to the al-Mustafa mosque as the previously claimed
- Wagner does not mention whether or not the Associated Press stands behind the accounts sourced to Jamil Hussein
For those of you counting, Wagner also didn't answer this question:
In both instances, if the Associated Press no longer feels these accounts are credible, don't you have a responsibility as an ethical news organization to print a correction or a retraction of these charges?
Wagner appears to avoid any direct statements saying that the Associated Press stands behind their Hurriyah reporting, does not acknowledge the existence of the AP television video AP once claimed to have, and most noticeably, refuses to state whether or not they stand behind the stories sourced to the man they call Jamil Hussein.
These are not what I would consider encouraging answers.
You're going to have to play 20-questions and frame them like a lawyer - yes/no answers with no room for dissembling.
ex: In this question: Should AP have mentioned these ties to terrorist groups when it cited the AMS as a source?
There are actually several issues.
Q: Is AP aware of allegations of AMS terrorist ties? Yes/No
Q: Does AP believe AMS has terrorist ties? Yes/No
Q: Does AP have a vetting process for sources? Yes/No
Q: If yes above, Has AMS passed AP vetting procedure for sources? Yes/No
Q: Does AP consider AMS a "reliable source"? Yes/No
Q: Does AP policy demand a disclaimer on sources AP considered unreliable or unvetted? Yes/No
Now, you're in a good position to ask the original question ;->
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 20, 2007 04:24 AMCould some of these AP people actually be so bloomin' dumb that they actually believe their reporters can do no wrong? I excerpted and linked from Part 41 of my Jamilgate series. (My how time flies when you're having fun!)
Posted by: Bill Faith at January 20, 2007 04:25 AM"A search of news reports in Nexis and Reuters shows that reporters for numerous news agencies, including The New York Times, Washington Post, and Reuters reported attacks on four or five Sunni mosques in Hurriyah (also spelled Hurriya) and additional sites elsewhere in Baghdad on Friday, November 24, 2006."
Just out of curiosity, since the NYT and WP run AP stories, are their reports based on the AP story?
No, I haven't checked for myself, it's just idle curiosity.
I thought that I had seen some reporting previously from the New York Times on this subject (this from Wikpedia, but I have seen reporting previously):
Despite the AP's characterization of burning six people as "a new method of brutality"[31], there has been no outcry concerning this by residents or in the local media. According to Edward Wong, a New York Times reporter who reported on the events in Baghdad on November 24, 2006:
When we first heard of the event on Nov. 24, through the A.P. story and a man named Imad al-Hashemi talking about it on television, we had our Iraqi reporters make calls to people in the Hurriya neighborhood. Because of the curfew that day, everything had to be done by phone. We reached several people who told us about the mosque attacks, but said they had heard nothing of Sunni worshippers being burned alive. Any big news event travels quickly by word of mouth through Baghdad, aided by the enormous proliferation of cell phones here. Such an incident would have been so abominable that a great many of the residents in Hurriya, as well as in other Sunni Arab districts, would have been in an uproar over it. Hard-line Sunni Arab organizations such as the Muslim Scholars Association or the Iraqi Islamic Party would almost certainly have appeared on television that day or the next to denounce this specific incident. Iraqi clerics and politicians are not shy about doing this. Yet, as far as I know, there was no widespread talk of the incident.[25]
Finally, other media outlets (the New York Times[34] and the Washington Post[35]) attempted to corroborate the story concerning the burning of six people, but were unable to do so.
I believe that Imad al-Hashemi has recounted the story based on other reporting I have seen?
I am hoping that Michelle and Bryan were able to get some photos of the mosques that were "bombed and burned" as well as some local flavor to the overall report. I believe that if they got this information it will put an end to this story and begin the focus on other reporting from Iraq.
Posted by: RS at January 20, 2007 10:18 PMHA! I was right!
Earlier I posted that:
"...It takes a lot of time and effort to create a tissue of lies that will skirt the issues you bring up, but still maintain the look pious infalibility they hide behind..."
What'd I tell ya? Right on the money. If that skirt was any bigger, you could hide a high school prom in it.
Then I went on to say:
"...Cut'em some slack, CY. As the world's largest generator of BS, questions such as yours only serve to constipate an otherwise effective mass s**t producer. Sit back, relax, and wait. I'm sure the fertilizer is on the way from these lying bastards..."
And boy-howdy did the fertilizer come. Heck, I was even right about the "lying bastards" part, too.
I'm just a prognosticating fool. I think I'll go out and buy me a lottery ticket...
Posted by: WB at January 20, 2007 11:23 PMSo what if The New York Times, Washington Post, and Reuters reported attacks on four or five Sunni mosques in Hurriyah on Friday, November 24, 2006?
If all of the AP's friends jumped off a bridge, would the AP? Even in this case, where the AP reinvestigated the story and ran a follow-up that omits the apparently intact mosques?
Posted by: Karl at January 22, 2007 02:23 AMHow to take her comment? THat is really the question. I mean, Carroll seems to indicate that later reports don't carry as much detail sometimes. First off - that is completely back-asswards. As you gain more detail over time, you include more detail. But what seems even funnier, it seems that, contrary to all the evidence, Carroll is still grasping at the story that 6 people were immolated. According to her statement, just because the information dropped from later versions, doesn't mean it's not true. What a load of bifurcation!
Posted by: Specter at January 22, 2007 07:10 AM
